1 / 9

SCIM Ticket #50 “Filter semantics for complex plural attributes”

SCIM Ticket #50 “Filter semantics for complex plural attributes”. Summary for IETF-88 Vancouver, November 2013. <emails> <email> <value>​bjensen@jensen.com</value> <type>work</type> <primary>true</primary> </email> <email> <value>​babs@example.com</value> <type>home</type> </email>

damita
Download Presentation

SCIM Ticket #50 “Filter semantics for complex plural attributes”

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SCIM Ticket #50“Filter semantics forcomplex plural attributes” Summary for IETF-88 Vancouver, November 2013

  2. <emails> • <email> • <value>​bjensen@jensen.com</value> • <type>work</type> • <primary>true</primary> • </email> • <email> • <value>​babs@example.com</value> • <type>home</type> • </email> • </emails> Issue #50 How to write a search filter like to find users whose primary email address contains “@example.com” filter=emails co "​@example.com" and emails.primaryeq "true" When: • Email is a multi-valued attribute • The value “@example.com” and “primary” are different sub-attributes • Thus the “emails.” value instance matched may be different in the two clauses, leading to unexpected results. • Realization: SCIM filters need a syntax for indicating that two or more criteria apply to the same instance of a multi-valued attribute

  3. Options to Consider • Use a filter dot notation • Use a filter operator • Use a back reference • Use structured JSON filter definitions • Something else… Each has both pros and cons

  4. 1. Use a Filter dot Notation • Proposed by Jeff Moore • Use the attribute name plus [ ] with . to group clauses that refer to the same attribute instance: emails[.type eq "work" and .value co “@example.com"] emails[.type eq "work" and .value co“@example.com"] or ims[.type eq "xmpp" and .value co"@foo.com"] addresses[.state eq"CA" and .rooms[.type eq "bedroom" and .number gt 2]] • If the dot “.” is missing - then it would be an absolute reference. • Could also have “..” to move scope up one.

  5. 2. Use the instance() Filter Operator • Proposed by ? • Use a grouping operator for clauses that refer to the same attribute instance: instance(emails.typeeq "work" and emails.value co “@example.com“) or instance(emails.typeeq“home" and emails.primaryeq true) instance(addresses.stateeq "CA" and instance(addresses.rooms.typeeq "bedroom" and addresses.room.numbergt2) ) • Nesting is possible • Is it ok to refer to other attributes within the instance( ) ?

  6. 3. Use a Back-Reference • Proposed by Bjorn Aannestad • Use the attribute name plus a “%1” to indicate the same instance emails%1.type eq "work" and emails%1.value co “@example.com” emails%1.type eq "work" and emails%1.value co“@example.com” or emails%2.primary eq true emails%1.type eq “home” and emails%2.ims.type eq "xmpp" and emails%2 co @example.com addresses%1.state eq"CA" and addresses%1.rooms%2.type eq "bedroom" and rooms%2.number gt2 • Supports criteria involving multiple, different, instances of an attribute • Terms in the filter do not have to be adjacent

  7. 4. Use a JSON Filter Structure • Many examples (e.g. MetaWeb Query, Jaql) • http://mql.freebaseapps.com/ch03.html

  8. Comparison

  9. Questions and Discussion

More Related